Must be tweeted by a white person: This is r/WhitePeopleTwitter, so all posts must have been tweeted by a white person.

No hate speech: No hate or mean-spirited posts or comments. We do not tolerate racism, sexism, or bigotry. Seriously, you will be banned.

No bullying or witch-hunting: This includes comments disparaging people whose tweets and posts are featured here.

No doxxing: Seeking personal information will result in the post/comment being removed and a possible ban. This includes seeking info for yourself or others, and refers to, but is not limited to, real names, phone numbers, email addresses, or private social media accounts.

Mark NSFW content: All NSFW posts must be flaired as such or they will be removed.

I'm pretty sure that Rebecca wishes the lie she told about her 3 year old would die. At the very least, she probably wishes this Wikipedia entry hurry up and die. But then that would prove that her 3-year old isn't as woke as she portrayed him to be.

Someone suggested it might be a photoshopped wiki and they're probably right. Its going to take her a while to live this down though. She will welcome obscurity when all is said and done. Poor little kid has a lot to live up to now all because his mother told a lie.

Also, Sappho. We know very little of her poetry, save for one piece and contemporary references to the rest.

Also, the Gospel of Basilides. We don't know much of what it contained, and what we do know is only from references to it in other writings.

And the Gospel of Eve, of which only a handful of passages that survived because they were quoted in condemnations of it by a church figure.

Really, there are a lot of abandoned, lost, or deliberately eradicated religious texts that will forever make me very sad to know they're lost. I'm not even religious at all, I just find religion fascinating, and the permanent loss of the writings/beliefs of many early Christian off-shoots kills me.

Extremely. You know what we know of Herakleitos, once thought extremely influential, fits in a double spaced page. The same can be said about most pre Socratic philosophers and most lyrical poets. Hell, even Aeschylus, the father of tragedy has only 10% of his work survive, just 7 of his 70 plays.

IIRC, we don't really know what diseases really did the damage. We do know at least some came from Europeans and while wasn't intentional, it spread through native populations like wildfire and killed off many tens of millions in North America alone, with death tolls in some places thought to be upwards of 90%.

We know Smallpox did a ton of damage, but it was just one of a bunch of diseases. Even in places like Mexico, cocoliztli killed off way more people than Smallpox did. Last I remember reading, they suspected it was actually a disease endemic to the jungles in south/Central America, basically hemorrhagic fever.

Which isn't to say we didn't have something to do with it (huge number of factors play into shit like that like the control/subjugation of Central America, drought, the massive amount and variety of domesticated animals we brought bringing diseases, etc., etc.).

I just mean that inoculating against Smallpox wouldn't have stopped what happened. Whereas Europeans had thousands of years to adapt to these diseases, indigenous cultures were bombarded with them all at once, unintentionally.

It's probably a sad reality that, had Europeans intended to treat native populations as equals and trading partners, merely by existing within the same space they had condemned their cultures to a really shitty and awful fate. That doesn't excuse the very many real atrocities committed, by any measure, of course – I just mean that it was a confluence of events of events and diseases.

Which is really sad. It's bad enough that so many cultures were extinguished due to malice, but to think so many were wiped out due to blithe ignorance is really tragic. I can't even begin to imagine what was lost there.

So, obviously in a couple of sentences I didn’t/can’t convey the entirety of our conversation or anything like that. I’m not trying to say I stopped talking to her entirely because of that one statement. There are plenty of other things said in concert with that one that just were kind of weird and gave me the impression that she really wasn’t exaggerating very much.

I wasn’t “offended” by it quite as much as I thought “that’s not really the best look when you’re trying to connect with someone you don’t know very well.” It reminded me a lot of when I was seeing another girl and her roommate’s boyfriend says “hey, you know you’re a lot smarter than you look!” One of those situations where later in the shower you are thinking about it and I wish I had said “hey, you know that’s not quite the compliment you think it is!”

You're lucky. I used to think, "You hear about these people, but no one really acts like that." And then one of these people entered my life. This person is why I believe all the weird, horrible shit that happens on r/justnomil, r/justnofamily, r/raisedbynarcissists, and similar subreddits.

Honestly, as someone with a three-year-old, I doubt she made this up. However, it's probably something SHE said, or very similar to something SHE said, that her kid is mostly repeating. Kids at that age are word sponges and parrots. It's pretty likely that an author has spent some time telling her kids why books are cool and important, so this was probably the kid repeating back/combining previous things he's heard mom say. Sounds deep, but of course the kid doesn't really understand what he's saying.

My kid LOVES to constantly be trying to summarize things I've said and make statements about the world like this. Some of them would sound deep if, like this, you write them down and take away the context where two seconds earlier she's explaining why ducks are people or why boats need to eat waffles.

I think this author is probably guilty of trying to make her kid sound smart by presenting something the kid said as if the kid understood it, when really the kid is just mix-and-match parroting things the parents said without really getting it. But it wouldn't be that unlikely that her kid did actually say these words.

My three year old made up on a song about Cinderella doo-dooing in the floor. To which my wife asked, is that a song he is making up. I had to say no that is the real song about Cinderella and her doo-doo. He is almost 4 though.

And the book burnings started very early in Nazi Germany (1933), were independent from Kristallnacht (1938) which was targeting Jewish businesses and synagogues, and most of the books they burned have survived. The looting and burning have completely erased a ton of the most incredible pieces of modern art though

A good number of her "Selected Poem" titles are directly ripped off of contemporary internet memes of the time in which they were released too. Don't know if it's unintentional or deliberate but combined with the "my 3 year old said this thing" it seems like she's comfortable with stretching things.

Tbf kids say deep shit like this all the time. But it's not because they're philosophers, they just say silly jumbled thoughts out loud a lot. Some of those thoughts come out unintentionally deep, others are just nonsense. Her kid may have said something similar but she added meaning and intent to his words that weren't there. Although a 3 year old saying anyone resembling that seems way too bullshit.

I don't get why everyone assumes there's no way a 3 year old could have said that. Sure, the 3 year old may not be a genius, but this isn't that unlikely. I hate when this pops up because chances are her son DID say that and everyone acts as if they know for sure he didnt.

I was honestly just in the middle of typing up a defense of Rebecca and her prosaic three-year-old, but then I realized that that kid definitely never fucking said that and the whole “who is much smarter than I am” bit is what landed her silly ass on a petty Wikipedia entry.

I’ve seen this tweet a quintillion times on r/wokekids but it still confuses me. What was going through her head when she wrote that? Why? What does she mean by “Even Wolves” and how did she expect people to believe her three year old could think of something so profound seeming that’s still really, really dumb as a lot of people in this thread have pointed out.

Her followers did believe her, or at least the ones that responded to her did. She got the attention that she was looking for and was happily engaging with the people who were telling her how amazing her son was.

When the internet at large got a whiff of the bullshit and started giving her grief for it, at first she just ignored those responses and when that became untenable she switched her account to private. The answer to “how did she think anyone would believe it” is she had cultivated an audience of followers that did.

“Even the non-domesticated progenitors to our faithful companions doth shed the aethereal coils of mortality,” said my three year old, after which he took a long drag of his cigar and gazed outside toward the dark torrent of rain pelting our window. “You know, Rebecca, they say if you want a friend in Washington you’d better get a dog.”

My kids say shit they hear other people say, even if they have no idea what they're talking about. This goes nuts when they're 2 and 3. Sometimes they accidentally say really profound, or adult-sounding things. Again, they have no idea what they're saying.

When we write dialogue, we simplify it. We do this for adults and children. No one writes what their kid actually says--"Hey dad...dad...dad, today, today, today at school, today Brandon said his mom, today at school, Brandon said his mom gives him ice cream for breakfast. And Brandon is the same, Brandon is the same age as me, Brandon is 4 years old like me. So, I don't want cereal because I'm 4." Yeah, I don't write that, I write, "Today my kid said: 'Hey Dad, my friend Brandon is 4 years old and his mom gives him ice cream for breakfast, so since I'm 4 can I have ice cream instead of cereal too?" It's the same shit. And, by the way, you all do this too; no one writes all the "um" and "you know" statements that people say.

Finally, my last point is just my first point again. It's a fucking 3-year-old. Teaching a kid that animals die, then they try to apply the concept to something else. Like, yeah, "Words never die" sounds deep when spoken by an adult. But the kid isn't having a profound revelation about the permanence of culture, or the historical art of storytelling. It's a dumbfuck 3-year-old saying "words don't die." Yeah, they don't. The kid is 3 years old. His poet of a parent found his statement to be profound beyond the kid's understanding. She's a fucking poet. And, by the way, when other parent friends reply with shit like "Wise beyond her years!" or "Smarter than most adults I know!" They're joking around. Have we never heard the expression, "from the mouths of babes"? It's for this exact situation where children accidentally stumble upon deep shit in the random, string-of-nonsense that regularly spills from their tiny, developing brains.

There is nothing unbelievable about this dumbass post, certainly not to the level of global shaming by a bunch of nothingeverhappens morons.

There's actually a lot of politics and infighting among "top" Wiki editors/moderators. It's nice to think that "anyone" can edit and contribute to Wikipedia, but the truth is that a relatively small group of power moderators controls a lot of it.

If you're looking up something even slightly contentious, you can't assume you're getting the entire truth even with Wikipedia.

Rule 3: "No bullying or witch-hunting." Posting a Wikipedia page isn't bullying or witch-hunting, and no one is encouraging anyone to edit the page with false information (or to edit it at all).

Rule 4: "No doxxing." Specifically, the rule addresses seeking information about someone but I've no doubt it is intended to cover the converse as well. However, given that nothing in the inclusion of the Wikipedia page includes personal information (that isn't included in her Twitter handle), it's not really doxxing, is it?

Hell, for all we know the Wikipedia page isn't real and someone made it as a joke. I mean, you can check, but googling her twitter name shows it as the first entry anyways, so it's not even kind of not-public.

So it doesn't seem that way to me?

If it IS a violation, then it should probably be required you block out the name on Twitter, since personal, verified accounts are usually the owner's name and easily googled. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Of course, you could then just google the text of the tweet and find out who, but you know.